BREAKING: Appeals court denies Trump administration request to reinstate ban

[Gass3268]

And here's where Trump's tweets and commentary have come to bite him in the arse. Apparently in their view it runs afoul of the Lemon test, and thus, the First Amendment. They're also arguing there's Fifth amendment issues here.

Anyway, the fun money quote:

"The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban"as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order."

Out of interest when was it that SCOTUS ruled that the Equal Protection Clause applies to non-Citizens, since that seems to be necessary to claim that in order to make this case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

[MasterJedi]

Yeah, so now it's clearly high time to just ignore the courts and go ahead anyway. Why wait for them if they can't keep up with the times?

If your goal is to witness a constitutional crisis and perhaps push our entire constitutional republic to its edge, then yes, that's a brilliant idea. It also seems like the one Trump is most likely to take in the event the SCTOUS strikes down his Muslim ban.

Since you don't seem to appreciate the purpose and necessity for our system of checks and balances, then I suppose you'd like to see what America would look like with an unchecked executive. I can answer that for you: the executive would have no limits on its authority, as it would then define its own limits without regard for the constitution, and our entire government would functionally collapse as power transfers upwards into the Presidency. That's what's called a dictatorship or authoritarian regime. Is that really what you want?

They care, they just think they're right and would approve of any extreme to implement their agenda. If it was the other side doing the same the outcry would be crazy with lots of calls for "freedom" "revolution" and "the constitution".

[Reaganfan]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

I think it's why they are judges and not you.

They understand law, and you don't. It's simple as that.

Trump is free to ask Congress to pass laws or to start the process for a constituonnal amendment, however.

It's about activist judges trying like mad to find ways around the Constitution. It really seems to me, and maybe I'm not right, I don't know, but it seems to me that liberal judges are always frantic to find ways around the Constitution.

Why?

[Trapsy]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

[Devout Centrist]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

I think it's why they are judges and not you.

They understand law, and you don't. It's simple as that.

Trump is free to ask Congress to pass laws or to start the process for a constituonnal amendment, however.

It's about activist judges trying like mad to find ways around the Constitution. It really seems to me, and maybe I'm not right, I don't know, but it seems to me that liberal judges are always frantic to find ways around the Constitution.

Why?

Were the judges who placed an injunction on Obama's EO "activist"?

[MasterJedi]

The Constitution is extremely clear that the President of the United States has the authority to do these things in the interests of national security.

Period. That isn't debatable. Remember, the Constitution is not an evolving document.

I think it's why they are judges and not you.

They understand law, and you don't. It's simple as that.

Trump is free to ask Congress to pass laws or to start the process for a constituonnal amendment, however.

It's about activist judges trying like mad to find ways around the Constitution. It really seems to me, and maybe I'm not right, I don't know, but it seems to me that liberal judges are always frantic to find ways around the Constitution.

Why?

The respected, Bush appointed conservative Republican judge who was approved 99-0 and was part of the 3-0 ruling said you're wrong.

[Reaganfan]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

[Trapsy]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

You're missing the point. This EO affected legal permanent residents, the sloppiness just undercuts Trumps argument.

[7,052,770]

Activist judges are good when they overturn liberal laws and EOs and bad when they overturn conservative ones.

[Reaganfan]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

You're missing the point. This EO affected legal permanent residents, the sloppiness just undercuts Trumps argument.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."


I read this argument as an amateur liberal opinion. It feels like something written by a 20 year old college student at Berkeley. I do not believe that they have a legal case going forward on Constitutional grounds. At all.

The legality of his EO is sound. Period. The Constitution doesn't talk about discrimination against foreign travelers. A Syrian immigrant is not entitled to due process under United States laws.

[2952-0-0]

^ When were you appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, anyway?

[Crumpets]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

You're missing the point. This EO affected legal permanent residents, the sloppiness just undercuts Trumps argument.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."


I read this argument as an amateur liberal opinion. It feels like something written by a 20 year old college student at Berkeley. I do not believe that they have a legal case going forward on Constitutional grounds. At all.

The legality of his EO is sound. Period. The Constitution doesn't talk about discrimination against foreign travelers. A Syrian immigrant is not entitled to due process under United States laws.

That's true, but I believe those already under US jurisdiction (such as those in airports, and those who are already here on green cards and visas they obtained legally) are afforded quite a few rights, including due process of the law. If Trump had said "anybody applying for visas from these countries will be hereby denied until further notice," he would have been on much more solid legal ground.

[PeteB]

As I said numerous times, Trump is just plain incompetent. How on earth he made it in the real estate world is beyond me.

This is the time for a smart POTUS to put his electoral capital into repealing Obamacare or into creating a new trade accord, not to scr.w around with the judiciary.

His ego will be his undoing. I am now predicting impeachment by late 2017 or early 2018.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Bring back the camps

That's not a nice thing to say.

And whatever you're saying right now is any more intellectual? Snowflake feelings.

Snowflakes... you mean those things that are all white, basically identical, come apart if exposed to even slightly different environments, and if you get a bunch of them together they shut down schools?

[Mehmentum]

If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

You're missing the point. This EO affected legal permanent residents, the sloppiness just undercuts Trumps argument.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."


I read this argument as an amateur liberal opinion. It feels like something written by a 20 year old college student at Berkeley. I do not believe that they have a legal case going forward on Constitutional grounds. At all.

The legality of his EO is sound. Period. The Constitution doesn't talk about discrimination against foreign travelers. A Syrian immigrant is not entitled to due process under United States laws.

Fun fact, nowhere in the bill of rights does the word 'citizen' appear.  Its always 'persons'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

As I said numerous times, Trump is just plain incompetent. How on earth he made it in the real estate world is beyond me.

He didn't. He went bust, twice. Each time he found more and shadier suckers to back him, and by his third run he reinvented himself as a professional celebrity and focused on the one thing he is really good at: being a salesman / swindler.

[DavidB.]

Yeah, so now it's clearly high time to just ignore the courts and go ahead anyway. Why wait for them if they can't keep up with the times?

If your goal is to witness a constitutional crisis and perhaps push our entire constitutional republic to its edge, then yes, that's a brilliant idea. It also seems like the one Trump is most likely to take in the event the SCTOUS strikes down his Muslim ban.

Since you don't seem to appreciate the purpose and necessity for our system of checks and balances, then I suppose you'd like to see what America would look like with an unchecked executive. I can answer that for you: the executive would have no limits on its authority, as it would then define its own limits without regard for the constitution, and our entire government would functionally collapse as power transfers upwards into the Presidency. That's what's called a dictatorship or authoritarian regime. Is that really what you want?

I was trolling, but, credit where credit is due, your response is excellent and almost makes me feel sorry for doing so. While I broadly support Trump's EO (though not all aspects) and am slightly annoyed with courts striking it down, it is important to respect the system of checks and balances, which exists to preserve freedom, and not overstep one's boundaries.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would uphold this ruling. It would set a dangerous precedent. You cannot have a judge appointed to a life term overrule an executive decision by the President.

Marbury v. Madison. Come on, it's the first major judicial decision of the Republic and it specifically involves an executive decision by the President.  

And it upheld that decision, albeit indirectly. The Court ruled that the law Congress passed giving the Court the right to issue Writs of Mandamus (which is what Marbury wanted done) was unconstitutional, hence upholding the incoming Jefferson administration's refusal to give Marbury the position to which he'd been confirmed by the Senate in the last days of the Adams' administration.

[SteveRogers]

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

At worst, its a 4-4 ruling and the 9th circuit decision stands. At best and most likely, there will be defectors. Trump will not be happy.

It's not even a given that SCOTUS will choose to get involved at this stage. They'll probably decline to mess with the stay and will wait for the case to come up to SCOTUS on the merits.

[Reaganfan]

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

At worst, its a 4-4 ruling and the 9th circuit decision stands. At best and most likely, there will be defectors. Trump will not be happy.

It's not even a given that SCOTUS will choose to get involved at this stage. They'll probably decline to mess with the stay and will wait for the case to come up to SCOTUS on the merits.

There are many legal analysts saying Kagan would likely vote to uphold Trump's decision.

[SteveRogers]

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

At worst, its a 4-4 ruling and the 9th circuit decision stands. At best and most likely, there will be defectors. Trump will not be happy.

It's not even a given that SCOTUS will choose to get involved at this stage. They'll probably decline to mess with the stay and will wait for the case to come up to SCOTUS on the merits.

There are many legal analysts saying Kagan would likely vote to uphold Trump's decision.

Which analysts? Based on what?

[Reaganfan]

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"-Trump https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

At worst, its a 4-4 ruling and the 9th circuit decision stands. At best and most likely, there will be defectors. Trump will not be happy.

It's not even a given that SCOTUS will choose to get involved at this stage. They'll probably decline to mess with the stay and will wait for the case to come up to SCOTUS on the merits.

There are many legal analysts saying Kagan would likely vote to uphold Trump's decision.

Which analysts? Based on what?

I've heard a couple mention it online and interviews on the cable networks.

Here's one article discussing how the court may not be quite among party lines, especially if the order is modified slightly. Kagan and Breyer could conceivably vote to uphold the order.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-courts-trump-travel-20170209-story.html

[wolfsblood07]

Thank you founding fathers!

Appeals court denies Trump administration request to immediately reinstate ban on travelers and refugees.

Bull.  The president has every right to stop foreigners from coming in to the country.  And soon, it will be done.

[Reaganfan]

Thank you founding fathers!

Appeals court denies Trump administration request to immediately reinstate ban on travelers and refugees.

Bull.  The president has every right to stop foreigners from coming in to the country.  And soon, it will be done.

Of course he does. Carter did it, Obama did it. This is not a shocking thing, or against the law.

[SteveRogers]

Thank you founding fathers!

Appeals court denies Trump administration request to immediately reinstate ban on travelers and refugees.

Bull.  The president has every right to stop foreigners from coming in to the country.  And soon, it will be done.

Of course he does. Carter did it, Obama did it. This is not a shocking thing, or against the law.

None of the examples you're talking about involved banning people who had already been legally admitted to the United States. Nor did those presidents brag about creating a religious test for entry to the country before enacting their policies. Different circumstances. Different laws.